Mutilating Miller*
by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan
Sarfati
A review of Finding Darwin’s God
by Kenneth R. Miller
Cliff Street Books, New York, 2000
Kenneth Miller is an ardent evolutionist and anti-creationist. He has a long history
of debating scientific creationists,1
and is credited with being a crafty debater. One of his techniques is known as ‘spread
debating’, i.e. reeling off a series of arguments (many of them straw men)
in rapid succession that can’t all be refuted in the time available, leaving
the naïve in the audience with the impression that the creationist can’t
answer them all.
In this book, Miller identifies himself as a practising Roman Catholic, and tries
vainly to find a reconciliation between God and organic evolution. However, Miller
does concede that many of his students find it odd that he can simultaneously embrace
organic evolution and God. Dare we suggest that his students are onto something!
Especially with his long history of allying with avowed humanists, including Frederick
Edwords, then President of the American Humanist Association, against Bible-believing
Christians. A more recent example is teaming up with the atheist Eugenie Scott in
a Firing Line debate on US television (PBS, December 1997), considering
that Scott has won humanist awards precisely for her
fanatical anti-creationist campaigning. [See also the first author’s (JW’s) commentary on this debate]
Embellishing the truth
Before proceeding with this book, the reader is cautioned that some of its material
is of questionable factual accuracy. For instance, Henry M. Morris2 points out that Miller has misrepresented the statements
of creationists in general and of Morris in particular. If so, then this is nothing
new. Miller appears to have a long history of, let’s say this diplomatically,
embellishing the truth.
For instance, commenting on one televised debate that even the evolutionary journals
conceded was won by the creationist Duane Gish, Miller accused Gish of leaving an
important word out of a quote, yet it later turned out that the word in question
was not even there!3 Miller
later apologized in print, but it shows Miller’s carelessness in his attempts
to character-assassinate creationists. Another example is having provided the evolutionary
philosopher Philip Kitcher with a series of allegedly transitional fossils, who
in turn challenged Gish in a debate to point out any gaps. Gish could not—but
it turns out that this is not surprising because two of the intermediates were hypothetical,
others had hypothetical parts added, they were not drawn to scale, and weren’t
even in stratigraphic sequence!3
Miller’s book continues this spin-doctoring, with an illustration of the skeletal
remains of an alleged land mammal/whale intermediate, Ambulocetus natans
(p. 265). But it is misleading, bordering on deceitful, because the skeleton is
drawn as a complete animal, with no indication of the fact that far fewer bones
were actually found, including the all-important pelvic girdle. This means it’s
ludicrous for Miller to claim, ‘the animal could move easily both on land
and in water’, because his fellow evolutionist Annalisa Berta pointed out:
‘ … since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence
in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton.
This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles
that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.’4
[Ed. note: some Web sites have claimed that new evidence overturns
this, but see A Whale of a Tail: Addendum 2
to address this claim]
This should make one a tad skeptical of Miller’s many bold pro-evolutionary
statements (e.g. ‘the gaps are filling up’). One wonders why the theory
of punctuated equilibrium was ever developed by some evolutionists if it was indeed
true that the gaps were filling up, and it was only a matter of time before they
were largely filled!
Straw men
Miller, as usual with evolutionary propagandists, equivocates about the meaning
of ‘evolution’, i.e. calling any change ‘evolution’ and
implying that it proves particles-to-people evolution and disproves special creation.
Of course, creationists make it very clear that particles-to-people evolution requires
changes that increase genetic information content. To date, not
a single example of such a change has been observed, but such changes should be
plentiful if evolution were true.5
Yet Miller cites examples of speciation, e.g. the Galápagos animals (p. 94)
and ring species (pp. 47–48) as if this proves his case. But this merely bashes
the straw-man of fixity of species, held today mainly by compromising evangelicals
who accept long ages and a local Flood (and in Darwin’s time, held by believers
in multiple catastrophism such as Cuvier). But creationists regard speciation as
an important part of the Creation/Flood/dispersion model.6–8
Miller also claims that creationists deny beneficial mutations (p. 49), but creationists
are careful to point out that some mutations can be beneficial even without any
gain in information.9 He
invokes penicillin and pesticide resistance and HIV variants, although creationists
have long pointed out that in none of these cases has any information increase been
demonstrated.10,11
Another straw man is Miller’s claim that creationists believe in a God ‘who
intentionally plants misleading clues beneath our feet and in the heavens themselves’
(p. 80). Of course, when the likes of Miller reject God’s propositional revelation
in Scripture, they are misleading themselves. God is not deceiving
them, as He had plainly told them in Scripture what happened in Earth’s past.
But empirical data are not propositional revelation, so they do
not speak for themselves. Rather, long-agers (mis)interpret
the data according to a uniformitarian framework that rejects Creation and the Flood
a priori,12
instead of according to the correct framework of Biblical history. This is well
illustrated in the ‘Parable of the Candle’.13
Miller brings up an outdated creationist explanation for the ‘distant starlight’
problem, the ‘light created in transit’ theory. One would expect that
a supposedly up-to-date anti-creationist book written in 2000 would have kept up
with current creationist theories. But many creationists have also rejected the
‘light created in transit’ theory, and think that Russell Humphreys’
cosmological model, invoking the well attested principle of general-relativistic
gravitational time dilation, provides a plausible answer, and this was published
in 1994!14
Miller’s naïvity in his discussion of isotopic dating in general, and
the Rb-Sr isochron method in particular, is nothing short of astounding. He also
pontificates on geology despite admitting that he’s never taken a course in
it (p. 65)! He at first does a good job describing the Rb-Sr isochron method, but
then accepts the collinearity of points on the ‘isochron’ as a virtual
guarantee of the age obtained. Fact is, it has been known for decades that geochemical
processes can produce Rb-Sr ‘isochrons’, with fair to excellent collinearity,
that have nothing to do with the correct age of the rock being dated.15
Miller also thinks that he can refute the creationist young-Earth argument from
the decay of the magnetic field by pointing to field reversals (p. 65). Again, Miller
is inexcusably out-of-date, this time ignoring Humphreys’ papers dating
from the mid-1980s on geomagnetic field reversals which provided a
mechanism, and predicted rapid reversals that were since found
in rapidly-cooled lava flows.16
Miller’s powerful faith—in materialism, not in God
It is hardly surprising that Miller gives the standard ‘evolution is fact’
litany. He points out that, time after time, in the history of science, supernatural
explanations have given way to naturalistic ones. But it is not that simple. Despite
all of the fantastic advances in science over the past few centuries, the central
biologic mysteries have stood firm: virtually all phenomena related to the presumed
evolutionary origin of living things have stubbornly failed to yield to naturalistic
explanations! What does this tell us?
Apropos to this, Miller tacitly admits that such things as the origin of
life have not been shown to be explicable by chemical evolution. He then argues
that, in time, science will be able to. But science is supposed to be based on evidence,
while this is a faith statement on Miller’s part—faith in materialism,
certainly not faith in God. It is like finding a watch on the beach and stubbornly
maintaining that one need no watchmaker because, even though today we have no idea
how sand and water spontaneously give rise to watches, surely one day a naturalistic
explanation will be found for watches. After all, science always eventually triumphs
with non-design explanations over design-based ones, doesn’t it? Miller’s
arguably wishful thinking about future successes of materialistic explanations also
goes contrary to the methodology of science. When a theory fails to be substantiated
by evidence, scientists do not forever try to find evidence favourable to the theory.
They simply abandon the theory, and propose a new one. But this is obviously too
much for the rationalists. They cannot (or, more accurately, will not) abandon their
faith in the materialistic origin of life, no matter how devoid of evidence it is,
because that would—horror of horrors—instead require serious consideration
of an Intelligent Designer.
And, all the while protesting belief in God, Miller himself is very much opposed
to God even as an Intelligent Designer. It makes one wonder about the genuineness
of his Roman Catholicism, because an essential dogma of that faith, as defined by
the First Vatican Council is ‘the one true God our creator and lord can be
known for certain through the creation by the natural light of human reason’,
which was based on
Romans 1:20 ff. The atheistic philosopher Antony Flew was certainly not
impressed by people like Miller who denied their own doctrines.17
Predictably, Miller tries to refute teleological explanations by trotting out the
‘eye evolving in stages’. He claims that even slight increments of improved
eyesight invariably offer a survival advantage to the organism. But where is the
proof of this? Miller does not offer any. Consider the following: were a mutation
to endow an organism with, say, 20/450 vision instead of 20/500 vision, would such
a small improvement actually confer a selective advantage to its
bearer? Would not luck be much more important in determining whether or not one
ended up eaten by a predator than whether one had 20/450 vision instead of 20/500
vision? This point is well made by biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner, who points out that
even a mutation with a selective advantage (s) has a good chance of being
lost by genetic drift—the probability of survival is about 2s, and
s is usually <<1.18
And this says nothing about the requirement of concerted changes.
For instance, if a mutation conferred a tiny improvement in the acuity of a primitive
lens, what good would it do the organism if the primitive retina could not register
the slightly-clearer image, and/or the primitive optic nerve was incapable of transmitting
the slightly-improved image to the brain and/or the primitive visual cortex was
incapable of interpreting the slightly-clearer image?19
Miller also cites the variety of eyes found in nature, and uses this to argue that
eyes have evolved in stages. But this is a non-sequitur, as it tells us
nothing about how any kind of eye has evolved. In fact, it only begs the question
of whether they have evolved at all. Following Miller’s spurious
reasoning, one could go to a beach and, upon finding a variety of timepieces there
(a modern watch, an ultra-sophisticated atomic clock, a 17th-century
clock, and a sundial) arrange them in a sequence and triumphantly assert that one
has just proved that timepieces have evolved from sand, culminating in the atomic
clock. Never mind how even the simplest timepiece is supposed to have evolved spontaneously
from sand.
To Miller, the incredible complexity of life does not require God because there
are so many possible combinations of life’s building blocks that natural selection
had to produce some sort of complex living system. But this simply
begs the question of whether any sort of complex living system
could arise spontaneously, with or without natural selection.
Belittling scientific creationists—of course
Unlike other leading evolutionists (for example, Harvard’s Stephen Jay Gould,
who has labelled creationists ‘yahoos’), Miller refrains from calling
creationists derogatory names. He openly expresses disagreement with the standard
anti-creationist line about creationists being either stupid, blinded by religious
zeal, or cynical opportunists. He also rejects the oft-claimed evolutionistic view
that creationism has appeal because Americans are ignorant of, or unappreciative
towards, science. Nevertheless, as is typical of books of this genre, Miller mis-characterizes
scientific creationists. For instance, he charges them with seeking God in darkness.
Actually, creationists seek God in both the light of Scripture, and in the light
of empirical evidence, which is much more consistent with separate creation of living
things than with a chain of evolutionary ancestry.
Miller falsely claims that creationists seek God
in the gaps of knowledge, but creationists always say that evolution is discredited
precisely because of what we do know, e.g. information theory.
It’s also notable that an author praised for his logic argues from his faulty
premise about creationists and commits a beginner’s mistake in logic as follows
(p. 266):
‘If a lack of scientific explanation is
proof of God’s existence, the counterlogic is impeccable: a successful scientific
explanation is an argument against God.’
This is an example of the fallacy of denying
the antecedent. Compare:
‘If a suspect’s absence from the city
where a stabbing occurred is proof of his innocence of the stabbing, then the counterlogic
is impeccable: proof that he was in the city is an argument against
his innocence.’
We’re just glad that the local police don’t
use Millerian ‘logic’ on us every time someone is stabbed in our area.
[Ed. Note: for more information about logic, see Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation]
Miller also insinuates that those who believe in special creation are emotionally
immature. We are told that special creation is, in effect, a ‘security blanket’
which some adults simply refuse to outgrow. But is not the identical charge made
towards those who believe in God, as Miller professes to do? Furthermore, what Miller
fails to recognize is that emotions work both ways. For the one who loves sin, it
is actually emotionally comforting to believe that evolution is fact and that there
is no God to whom one will give account for the sins that one has committed throughout
one’s life. And certainly there are those who believe in special creation
because they are convinced that special creation is factually correct, irrespective
of their emotions.
As is nearly always the case with militant evolutionists, Miller equates his own
rationalistic prejudices with the scientific method. In his embrace of rank philosophical
materialism, Miller supposes that if an object (such as the sun) has a supernatural
origin, it is therefore beyond scientific explanation. Here Miller is confusing
origin with function. If we maintain, for instance, that automobiles are the products
of intelligent design, it does not mean that we thereby assert that their function
is beyond rational explanation: we only conclude that the origin of
the automobiles is not scientifically reducible to the function
of the car itself.
Miller’s contrived dualisms
Miller creates an artificial either/or dichotomy: a constantly-intervening Creator
or a totally behind-the-scenes Creator. In other words, according to his thinking,
we either have a capricious God who works miracles all the time, making the concept
of natural law impossible, or else we must suppose a God who never performs miraculous
works at any time under any circumstance. This, to us, is as silly as those humanists
who tell us that either we remove all traces of Christianity from public life, or
else we will soon have a theocracy where members of minority religions are all slaughtered.
Miller falsely supposes that evolutionary theory is necessary to make room for a
God who allows freedom for the function of the things that He has created. But this
is a complete non-sequitur in Miller’s thinking—God, according
to the Bible, does not work miracles all the time (or even most of the time), and
has long since stopped creating new things. God’s miraculous behaviour does
not nullify His non-miraculous behaviour, nor does His non-miraculous behaviour
nullify His past miraculous behaviour. And He certainly allows His created beings
a large degree of freedom, not the least of which is the freedom to sin and temporarily
get away with it.
Miller’s inconsistent thinking comes through in many other ways. Like a compromising
evangelical, he misrepresents Augustine and Basil (p. 255), and states that the
Days in Genesis were supposed to be understood as long periods of time. But Augustine
thought that Creation was instantaneous, and so he erred in the diametrically opposite
direction. He was a member of the Alexandrian school that fancifully allegorized
almost all Scripture (which did not necessarily deny its historicity but tried to
seek additional meanings), and was not a Hebrew scholar.20
The misrepresentation of Basil is even worse, since his Hexaëmeron
(= ‘Six Days’), nine Lenten sermons on the Days of Creation, makes it
very clear that he took Genesis literally.21
But if Genesis is simply a fairytale, then why seek any particular meaning of time
in the word Day? After all, one does not try to evaluate the heights of the seven
dwarfs which helped Snow White.
Miller also says that any believer who sees Scripture as the word of God should
delight in the fact that Genesis correctly states that humans are made from the
dust of the Earth. Earlier, he had relegated Genesis to an outdated myth, and now
he delights in one small detail that, to him, is true. But why should a believer
delight in the correctness of one small detail in the Book of Genesis if the bulk
of it is factually inaccurate?
In common with many evolutionists, Miller indulges in the presumption that God was
essentially compelled to give the ‘mythical’ Genesis account to the
ancient Hebrews simply because they were insufficiently sophisticated to understand
anything else—the typical chronological snobbery of bibliosceptics which can
be paraphrased as: ‘ancient people were stupid’. But, considering the
fact that various ancient philosophies, notably those of the Greeks, were evolutionary,
it is silly to suppose that the general outlines of evolutionary thinking could
not be grasped by the ancient Hebrews if that is what God had intended to teach
them! After all, there were plenty of Hebrew words that He could have used to teach
long ages.22,23
Of course, Jesus Christ affirmed the special creation of Adam and Eve according
to Genesis 1 and 2 (Matthew 19:3–6), that they were male and female ‘from
the beginning of creation’ rather than 15 billion years after the alleged
big bang (Mark 10:6), and that Noah’s Flood and Ark were historical
realities (Luke 17:26–27). So although Miller professes to be
a Christian, he is effectively accusing Christ of being simple-minded!
Miller tries to mute moral issues
Miller rejects the notion that evolution has anything to do with such things as
murder, war, adultery, etc., and points out that such things are found in the Old
Testament, long before publication of the Origin of Species. Yes, but what
Miller fails to appreciate is the fact that while such things as adultery have always
existed, they were never affirmed as something positive, or possibly morally neutral,
at least by learned people, until the development of modern evolutionary theory.
Thus, for instance, we have modern evolutionists teaching us, in dead seriousness,
that adultery can be something good because it provides a woman the opportunity
to have the best genes for her offspring, thus enhancing the ‘survival of
the fittest’. Evolutionists have also commonly stated that sexual promiscuity
is beneficial because it enhances the phenotypic genetic diversity within a population
of living things. In fact, that is the main reason that they believe that the sexes
exist in the first place! Anyway, they say, most animals are promiscuous, and we’re
just evolved animals. Evolutionary rationalizations have also been given for such
things as infanticide, etc. and a recent book made the horrifying claim that men
rape for evolutionary reasons.24,25
Miller completely misses the mark when he vainly tries to deflect criticism of the
cruelty of evolution by citing ‘Biblical cruelties’ such as God’s
burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the slaughter of the firstborns in ancient Egypt
(p. 246). Surely, as a self-identified Roman Catholic, Miller should know some Catholic
theology and recognize the fact that God’s punitive actions were never spontaneous,
but always as a response to egregious human sin. And, when Miller tells us that
the cruelties of nature are no big deal because ‘everything has to die anyway’,
he forgets that death is the penalty for sin, and not something which is innate
to nature. Considering the humanist-like pattern of Miller’s reasoning, one
is forced to ask what kind of a theist does Miller suppose himself to be?
If God is supposed to be behind the evolutionary process, then He is the Author
of the process of predation. On the other hand, once we realize that God created
all things by fiat as ‘very good’, we can then understand much predation
as a consequence of His partial withdrawal of His sustaining power from His creation
as a consequence of human sin. Again, Miller completely fails to make this distinction.
Pigeonholing God into vague abstractions
Those who claim a reconciliation between God and evolution invariably engage in
‘theobabble’, which includes an intentionally fuzzy concept of God.
That way, ‘God’ is relegated to an all-purpose amorphous being who can
be freely manipulated in any way to become ostensibly compatible with evolutionary
materialism. Recall the fable of the horse and tractor by the first author (JW),26 wherein the farmer
stubbornly insisted that, despite all appearances, his old horse was actually the
one behind the actions of his newly-purchased tractor.
Miller rejects the notion that evolutionary theory tells us anything about ultimate
meaning, as if one could create a watertight compartment between a theory and its
implications. Furthermore, does not the evolutionary theory, with its reliance on
accumulated accidents, tell us enough about its position on ultimate meaning? Or
do we put our head in the sand and pretend that it doesn’t?
Rejecting supernaturalism and divine revelation, Miller tries to smuggle God into
evolution by citing the role of God in everyday events. He gives, as example, a
bullet being fired. Who, if anyone, gets killed by the bullet? Miller maintains
that, regardless of the contingencies of the situation, a theist will invariably
recognize that God is the final arbiter of what the bullet will do, and to whom.
In like manner, Miller supposes that God can likewise be included, within organic
evolution, as a behind-the-scenes arbiter of which evolutionary events take place
and which do not.
Apart from being un-Biblical, Miller’s reasoning fails once closely examined.
To begin with, how is the theist supposed to know that God is behind such things
as the consequences of a rapidly-moving bullet? Miller might respond that it is
his faith in God, but what he is engaging in is a ‘leap in the dark’,
which is fatalism, and not true faith. In actuality, recognition of the truth of
God’s revelation (the Bible) is the only way that the theist can know, and
have true faith in, the fact that God regulates such things as the courses of rapidly-moving
bullets. God tells us in the Bible that He is sovereign over everything, and He
demonstrates His sovereignty by performing miracles. In fact, He proves that it
is He, and not the pagan deities, that is sovereign.
Now remember that Miller rejects both the Bible’s authority as well as supernaturalism.
As a result, it is a bit disingenuous of him to, out of the blue, invoke Divine
sovereignty when he has completely rejected the basis for knowing anything about
this sovereignty. In the absence of Divine revelation and Divine miracles, there
is no rational basis for supposing that God is behind such things as who gets wounded
or killed by a speeding bullet. One could just as easily suggest that the bullet
in flight is ultimately governed by some pagan deity (which one?), by some impersonal
cosmic principle (Fate? Karma?), or by nothing at all that is external to the material
laws of physics (ballistics, etc.). The latter view, of course, is that of the atheist.
The reductio ad absurdum of Miller’s position is this: since all
of the above views are possible, then there is no rational reason for preferring
God over the others. We thus see that Miller’s reasoning is internally inconsistent
and self-refuting. Consequently, evolutionary theory does not shed its atheistic
nature merely by appeals to distorted notions of Divine sovereignty.
Quite frankly, Miller appears to be two-faced throughout the book. On one hand,
he excoriates those evolutionists who say that evolution is atheistic. He even puts
much of the blame for the successes of creationism on such evolutionists. Creationism,
we are told, is largely a backlash against those who have trumpeted the demise of
God as a result of evolutionary theory. But, having said all this, Miller then espouses
organic evolution in general, and materialistic rationalism in particular, in a
manner which is virtually identical to those openly-atheistic evolutionists whom
he has just criticized! Retreating into a world of private ‘religious meaning’
in no way absolves him from this behaviour.
Throughout most of the book, Miller appears to maintain a compartmentalized view
of reality. That way, he can simultaneously maintain his Roman Catholic faith, which
of course assumes the existence of an intervening God, and at the same time accept
organic evolution which rejects an intervening God. A few times, however, Miller
does try to break through his compartmentalized thinking by ‘finding’
God in such things as aesthetics and the human sense of wonder. But even this is
a failure. To begin with, Miller is inconsistent in his thinking. If we do not need
God to explain such things as the origin of living things and the origin of the
human body, then why do we suddenly need God to account for such things as aesthetics
and wonder? In fact, such mental phenomena are treated as survival-enhancing phenomena
by the evolution theory he espouses, and are certainly not recognized by evolutionary
theory as products of God, any more than is the origin of the human body.
He also tries to find a role for God in quantum indeterminacy, yet another field
in which he lacks the slightest standing. But various atheistic reviewers on the
Amazon Internet book site have (rightly) castigated him for doing just what he (wrongly)
chides creationists for doing.
Conclusion
Judging by its title, this book is supposed to focus on how God and evolution are
supposed to be compatible. Yet, for all his adamant insistence that God can rationally
coexist with evolution, Miller fails to show, in any kind of logically coherent
manner, how God and evolution can coexist within the mind of the same person who
is intellectually honest and informed about the properties of each. Furthermore,
Miller glosses over the fact that evolutionary theory rejects God as a causative
agent in Earth’s history—not only in the direct and miraculous sense,
but also in the providential sense. So his talk of ‘religious meaning’
carries very little weight.
Miller’s last paragraph is, ‘What kind of God do I believe in? …
I believe in Darwin’s God’. This is, theological language aside, completely
indistinguishable from a nonexistent God. Especially as Darwin’s well documented
anti-Christian motivation has baneful implications for any professing Christian
claiming to believe in ‘Darwin’s God’!27 Evolution is inherently atheistic, and it is time
that we all face this fact.
It should be a lesson that many atheistic reviewers have sung the praises of Miller’s
book, but we have yet to see any reconsider their atheism! So it seems that they
love it for its supposedly effective rebuttal of creation, and probably think of
Miller much as Lenin used to cultivate ‘useful idiots’ in the West—people
who were too naïve to realise that they were undermining their own
foundations. Conversely, as already noted with Antony Flew, many atheists have more
respect for those who are consistent in their beliefs.
Personally, one can respect atheistic evolutionists more than one respects evolutionists
such as Kenneth Miller, if only because at least the atheistic evolutionists are
self-consistent in their reasoning, and forthright in recognizing and acknowledging
the implications of what they profess.
[Editor’s note: See feedback on this review]
Further reading
References
- Lubenow, M.L., From
Fish to Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, California, pp. 230–232, 1983.
Return to text.
- Morris, H.M., Finding an evolutionist’s God, Back to Genesis142,
October 2000. Return to text.
- Gish, D.T., Creation
Scientists Answer Their Critics (above), Institute for
Creation Research, El Cajon, pp. 91–92, 1993. Return to text.
- Berta, A., What is a Whale? Science,
263(5144):180–181, 1994; perspective on Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain,
S.T. and Arif, M., Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in Archeocete
whales, same issue, pp.210–212. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J.,
Refuting Evolution, ch. 2, Creation Ministries International
(Australia), 1999 (above) also refutes these straw men.
Second edition (2002) is in press. Return to text.
- Wieland, C.,
Darwin’s finches: evidence for rapid post-Flood adaptation, Creation
14(3):22–23, 1992. Return to text.
- Wieland, C.,
Brisk biters: fast changes in mosquitoes astonish evolutionists, delight creationists,
Creation 21(2):41, 1999. Return to text.
- For additional examples of rapid speciation, see Woodmorappe,
J., Noah’s Ark: a Feasibility Study, El Cajon, California, pp.
180–182, 1996 (above). In fact, the montane topography
in which the Ark landed itself must have facilitated the rapidity of speciation
(p. 165). Return to text.
- Wieland, C.,
Beetle bloopers: even a defect can be an advantage sometimes, Creation
19(3):30, 1997. Return to text.
- Wieland, C.,
Superbugs: not super after all, Creation 20(1):10–13,
1992. Return to text.
- Wieland, C.,
Has AIDS evolved? Creation 12(3):29–32, 1990.
Return to text.
- See the a priori
rejection of the Flood by founder of uniformitarianism, James Hutton;
Richard Lewontin’s commitment to materialism no matter how absurd,
and Scott Todd’s rejection of a designer regardless
of the evidence. Return to text.
- </docs/1247.asp>.
Return to text.
- Humphreys, D.R., Starlight and Time,
Master Books, Green Forest, 1994. Return to text.
- Woodmorappe, J., The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods,
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, 2000 (above).
Return to text.
- Sarfati, J.,
The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, Creation20(2):15–19,
1998; see Dr Humphreys’ papers cited therein. Return to text.
- Miethe, T. and Flew, A., Does God Exist? A Believer
and Atheist Debate, Collins, New York, p. 12, 1991. Miethe was unimpressed
as well (p. 61). Return to text.
- Spetner, L.M., Not By Chance, The Judaica
Press, Brooklyn, 1996, 1997 (above). Return to
text.
- See Gurney, P., Dawkins’ eye revisited, this
issue, pp. 101–108 for more detail. Return to text.
- Van Bebber, M. and Taylor, P.S., Creation and
Time: A report on the progressive creationist book by Hugh Ross, pp. 96–98,
Eden Productions, Mesa, AZ, 1994 (above). Return
to text.
- Documented by quotes in: Batten,
D., Return to text.
- Grigg, R.,
How long were the days in Genesis 1? What did God intend us to understand from the
words He used?Creation 19(1):23–25, 1996. Return to text.
- Stambaugh, J., The Days of
Creation: a semantic approach, CEN Tech. J. 5(1):70–76,
1991. Return to text.
- Thornhill, R. and Palmer, C.T., A Natural History
of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, The MIT Press, Massachusetts,
2000. Return to text.
- Lofton, J., Rape and evolution (interview with Craig
Palmer, co-author of Ref. 24), Creation 23(4):50–53,
2001. Return to text.
- Woodmorappe, J.,The horse and the tractor:
why God and evolution don’t mix, Creation 22(4):53,
2000. Return to text.
- Wieland, C.,
Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?Creation 14(4):16–19,
1992. Return to text.
| It has been said that “Information is power”. When it comes to creation information we’d have to agree. Keep the ‘powerful’ evidence for God being Creator coming.  | | |
|
